The Queensland senator faced calls for his removal from Parliament over his comments on the shootings in Christchurch. Instead, he was censured. What does that mean?

More than a million people have called for Queensland senator Fraser Anning to be removed from Parliament because of his reaction to the terrorist attack in Christchurch. In several tweets and public statements, Anning blamed Muslims for the massacre, even though Muslims were the victims of the mass shooting. He argued there was an intrinsic link between Muslim immigration and violence.

But can he be removed from Parliament? And if not, what could the law and politicians do to respond?

No regrets: Queensland senator Fraser Anning doubled down on his remarks at a press conference on Monday.Credit:AAP

Before 1987, both chambers were able to expel members – though it only ever happened once. In 1920, Labor opposition MP Hugh Mahon was expelled after he criticised the British government and expressed support for an Australian republic. Then-prime minister Billy Hughes accused him of sedition and he was expelled after a vote along party lines.

In 1987, the Parliamentary Privileges Act was amended to state: "A House does not have power to expel a member from membership of a House." It was changed following general agreement that only voters should have the power to expel an elected representative permanently.

In theory, that law could be changed again – as the Greens have proposed. But constitutional expert Anne Twomey has warned that would open up a constitutional can of worms by infringing the implied freedom of political communication that courts have found exists in our constitution. "There'd be real questions as to whether or not that was valid," she says.

Has Senator Anning broken laws against hate speech?

Anning may well be the subject of complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission, or its equivalents at a state level. However, experts doubt the senator would be found in breach of the law.

Section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act, for example, prohibits actions, including what is widely called hate speech, that "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people" based on race.

However, Anning's statements were directed at Muslims – adherents of the Islamic faith – not at a racial group. It was only earlier this year that the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled television host Sonia Kruger had vilified Muslims in comments she made on The Today Show but found this did not constitute racial vilification.

Former race discrimination commissioner Tim Soutphommasane put it this way: "We have federal laws against racial hatred, and state and territory laws against incitement of hatred and contempt, but it may be difficult for Anning's comments to be captured under such laws unless they involve hatred directed at people because of their race or ethnicity."

He added: "This should not take anything away from Anning's despicable comments about Muslim Australians. Enjoying free speech does not mean you enjoy freedom from criticism and censure. It certainly doesn't mean that you have a right to be a bigot."

Human Rights Commissioner Ed Santow said he could not comment on the legality of Anning's published comments as his organisation may need to mediate on the matter. However, he condemned Anning for his "hateful speech".

"I am horrified that Senator Anning used his position to condemn 'the entire religion of Islam' as a 'violent ideology'," Santow said in a statement. "Words matter [and] such hateful speech can contribute to violence."

Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong will jointly condemn Fraser Anning for his actions in a censure motion.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

So what has Parliament done?

It has censured Anning in the Senate "for his inflammatory and divisive comments seeking to attribute blame to victims of a horrific crime and to vilify people on the basis of religion, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people."

The censure motion, proposed by Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong, who respectively lead the government and opposition in the Senate, led to an hour-long debate in the Seante on April 3. Penny Wong was scathing.

"While those injured were being treated, this senator sought to further fan the flames of division. How pathetic. How shameful," she said. "This motion makes it clear he doesn't speak for us."

With both major parties backing it, the vote passed.

What are the consequences of a censure motion?

Not much. Anne Twomey wrote in The Conversation: "A censure motion is regarded as a serious form of rebuke, but it does not give rise to any further kind of punishment such as a fine or suspension."

Anning laughed off the threat of a censure motion. "I hope it's not too painful. Is Mr Morrison going to give me a flogging with his lace hanky or something?"

Has Senator Anning resiled from his remarks?

No. In March, Anning used a press conference to double down on his comments. "I don't think it can be called hateful speech if I state a fact," he said. "I don't regret anything I do." He remained unapologetic when the censure motion was before the Senate in April, telling the Senate the motion as an "attack on free speech" and "left-wing virtue signalling".

"My real crime is I simply told the truth," he argued.

What will happen to him at the election?

Anning was elected to the Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the disqualification of Malcolm Roberts on grounds of dual-citizenship. It has been noted that Anning received just 19 below-the-line votes on ballot papers – but this is irrelevant as Anning appeared third on the One Nation ticket, which received enough votes to elect two senators.

Anning immediately left One Nation, briefly joining [Bob] Katter's Australian Party before he was kicked out for racism. He is up for re-election in May and is considered highly unlikely to retain his seat, as he is effectively competing against One Nation for the position.

Senator Fraser Anning reacts to being egged from behind during a media conference.Credit:Courtesy of Nine News

Could Senator Anning face other penalties over the "egging" incident?

Victorian police are reviewing video footage and collecting witness statements relevant to an incident on Saturday in which Anning was egged by a teenager in Melbourne. The senator retaliated by striking at the 17-year-old twice while other men tackled the boy to the ground.

Victoria's Police Minister, Lisa Neville, said a number of people had exhibited "pretty bad behaviour" and police would look into whether any of them had over-reacted to the egging.

If Anning were convicted of common assault in Victoria, the maximum sentence applicable is three months' imprisonment. That would not be sufficient to disqualify him from Parliament, because disqualifications under section 44 of the constitution apply only when the maximum sentence is 12 months or longer. The federal election will come first, anyway.

Anning also maintains he acted in self defence. "That's what Australians do usually – if you're attacked, you defend yourself," he said on Monday. "He got a slap across the face, which is what his mother should have given him long ago."